Then the self-sampling assumption (SSA) produces the doomsday argument.
I have heard this around FHI before, Nick seems unbothered by such utterances. Nevertheless, I think this false to some extent. This is true: (S)SSA ⊨ (A ⊢ DA), A being some still open claims about the reference class. SSA produces a much weaker version of DA, which might not deserve this name and using it can be misleading. On the other hand, claiming DA was refuted by (S)SSA is also misleading. Between these two misleads, Nick seems to have chosen the former. His choice made sense from an utilitarian-memetic perspective, 10 years ago, among philosophers. However, I would prefer people already concerned with x-risks to use another terminology, which avoided both misleads.
SSA has a preference for universe with smaller numbers of observers (since it’s more likely that you’re one-in-a-hundred than one-in-a-billion).
I didn’t understand this. Why would the reference class be the universe you belong to? The reference class ought to be composed by all epistemically indistinguishable individuals(let’s call these EII), modulo all beliefs with no relevance to the questions being assessed. I think we have discussed my views on this last time I was here (I’m Joao, btw). I believe there are some grounds for claiming that (S)SSA entails you are in the universe with the biggest number of copies of epistemically indistinguishable individuals like you(let’s call these the class Z universes). On the other hand, if there are much more non-Z universes containing EII like you, as to counterbalance the fact there are many more of EII like you on the Z universes, then it can be the case is much more likely you are not on a Z universe.
If we are talking about possible worlds in the logical space, instead of possible universes, then the Z class seems to be composed by one member. This is so because, iff a world has the maximum number EII like you, then it is full, it exhausted the logical possible permutations, there are no more degrees of freedom where one could put more of anything else. This seems to be a good argument to say (S)SSA does not entail an absurdity, for then it becomes clear the class Z (or the descending classes (Y, X..) regarding the amount of EII like you) is much smaller than the classes of worlds where the frequency of EII like you is not oddly huge.
If we are talking about physical possible universes, then I’m not sure how to prevent absurdity. But it is still the case it seems much more likely you are on an universe with a lot of members of your reference class (or EII like you) than in one with few of them, provided the reference class cuts between universes—as I think it should, in most scenarios. In the end, physical universes or light-cones are much less relevant than the reference class. Rational observers live in the latter, atoms in the former. Whereas we live in an evolutionary mess.
*(S)SSA should probably mean SSSA, the one I’m sure where my arguments make sense. I think they also work on SSA, but I’m not sure.
I have heard this around FHI before, Nick seems unbothered by such utterances. Nevertheless, I think this false to some extent. This is true: (S)SSA ⊨ (A ⊢ DA), A being some still open claims about the reference class. SSA produces a much weaker version of DA, which might not deserve this name and using it can be misleading. On the other hand, claiming DA was refuted by (S)SSA is also misleading. Between these two misleads, Nick seems to have chosen the former. His choice made sense from an utilitarian-memetic perspective, 10 years ago, among philosophers. However, I would prefer people already concerned with x-risks to use another terminology, which avoided both misleads.
I didn’t understand this. Why would the reference class be the universe you belong to? The reference class ought to be composed by all epistemically indistinguishable individuals(let’s call these EII), modulo all beliefs with no relevance to the questions being assessed. I think we have discussed my views on this last time I was here (I’m Joao, btw). I believe there are some grounds for claiming that (S)SSA entails you are in the universe with the biggest number of copies of epistemically indistinguishable individuals like you(let’s call these the class Z universes). On the other hand, if there are much more non-Z universes containing EII like you, as to counterbalance the fact there are many more of EII like you on the Z universes, then it can be the case is much more likely you are not on a Z universe. If we are talking about possible worlds in the logical space, instead of possible universes, then the Z class seems to be composed by one member. This is so because, iff a world has the maximum number EII like you, then it is full, it exhausted the logical possible permutations, there are no more degrees of freedom where one could put more of anything else. This seems to be a good argument to say (S)SSA does not entail an absurdity, for then it becomes clear the class Z (or the descending classes (Y, X..) regarding the amount of EII like you) is much smaller than the classes of worlds where the frequency of EII like you is not oddly huge. If we are talking about physical possible universes, then I’m not sure how to prevent absurdity. But it is still the case it seems much more likely you are on an universe with a lot of members of your reference class (or EII like you) than in one with few of them, provided the reference class cuts between universes—as I think it should, in most scenarios. In the end, physical universes or light-cones are much less relevant than the reference class. Rational observers live in the latter, atoms in the former. Whereas we live in an evolutionary mess.
*(S)SSA should probably mean SSSA, the one I’m sure where my arguments make sense. I think they also work on SSA, but I’m not sure.